C ARNEGIE 91 Creating New Facts on the Ground

CARNEGIE
E N D O W M E N T F O R I N T E R N AT I O N A L P E A C E
POLICY
BRIEF
91
M AY 2 0 1 1
Creating New Facts on the Ground
Why the Diplomatic Surge Cannot Yet
Produce a Regional Solution in Afghanistan
Ashley J. Tellis
Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
S u m mary
ƒƒAlthough meaningful cooperation in the region surrounding Afghanistan is of vital importance, it has been elusive
because Afghanistan’s key neighbors have significantly divergent aims. Engineering a successful regional solution
would require the United States to fundamentally transform either these actors’ objectives or their dominant strategies.
Achieving the latter may prove more feasible, most crucially vis-à-vis Pakistan.
ƒƒThe region’s history of discord is mainly rooted in the troubled relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Although Pakistan’s involvement in Afghanistan is colored by its rivalry with India, its relations with Afghanistan are a
geopolitical challenge independent of India because of its fears of disorder along its western borders, the unwelcome
idea of “Pashtunistan,” and a related long-standing border dispute.
ƒƒPakistan’s reaction to these problems has only exacerbated them. As Islamabad, by supporting the Taliban insurgency,
has sought to exercise preponderant, if not overweening, influence over Kabul’s strategic choices, it has earned Kabul’s
distrust, deepened the Kabul–New Delhi partnership, and increased the risk to its relations with Washington—not to
mention threatening the lives of U.S. and other coalition forces operating in Afghanistan.
ƒƒDespite widespread support in Afghanistan for ending the war through a negotiated settlement if possible, the Afghan
Taliban leadership is unlikely to consider reconciliation unless it is faced with the prospect of continued losses of the
kind sustained as a result of coalition military operations in 2010. A regional solution is similarly unlikely as long as
Afghanistan and its neighbors, including India, perceive Islamabad as bent on holding Kabul in a choking embrace.
ƒƒSolving these problems lies beyond the capability of American diplomacy, and right now even of the promised
diplomatic surge. The best hope for progress lies in continuing military action to alter the realities on the ground—
thereby inducing the Taliban to consider reconciliation, while simultaneously neutralizing the Pakistani strategy that is
currently preventing a regional solution.
ƒƒTo increase the probability of military success, however, President Obama will need to forgo the politically calculated
drawdown of combat troops this summer and instead accept the advice of his field commanders to maintain the largest
possible contingent necessary for the coming campaign in eastern Afghanistan. Hard and unpalatable as it might be for
the president, this course alone offers a solution that will protect the recent gains in Afghanistan and advance American
interests over the long term.
2
about the author
Ashley J. Tellis is a senior
associate at the Carnegie
Endowment for International
Peace, specializing in
international security, defense,
and Asian strategic issues. While
on assignment to the U.S.
Department of State as senior
adviser to the undersecretary
of state for political affairs, he
was intimately involved in
negotiating the civil nuclear
agreement with India.
Previously he was commissioned
into the Foreign Service and
served as senior adviser to the
ambassador at the U.S. Embassy in
New Delhi. He also served on the
National Security Council staff as
special assistant to the president
and senior director for Strategic
Planning and Southwest Asia.
Tellis is the co-author of
Interpreting China’s Grand
Strategy: Past, Present, and Future
(2000). He is research director of
the Strategic Asia program at the
National Bureau of Asian
Research and co-editor of the
seven most recent annual
volumes, including this year’s
Strategic Asia 2010-11: Asia’s
Rising Power and America’s
Continued Purpose.
The author wishes to thank Peter
Austin, Jack Gill, Dan Markey,
Jessica Mathews, George
Perkovich, Vance Serchuk, and
several regional and U.S.
government officials who
requested anonymity for their
thoughtful comments.
CARNEGIE POLICY BRIEF
U.S. policymakers generally agree that a
“regional solution” is essential for a successful security transition in Afghanistan. Yet
there is considerable doubt about what such
a solution would entail, its priority relative
to other instruments, and whether it could
even be viable. Despite these uncertainties,
there is strong conviction that Washington’s
transfer of defense responsibilities to Kabul
will require its key neighbors to support an
internal reconciliation with the Taliban so
as to “enable a political process to promote
peace and stability in Afghanistan,” as the
administration’s 2010 review phrased it.
Viewed in retrospect, the administration’s yearning for a regional solution to the
Afghan war has been enduring—but has
also subtly mutated. When President Barack
Obama took office, the quest for securing
neighborly cooperation to defeat al-Qaeda
and the Taliban was driven by his goal of
getting Afghanistan right or, in other words,
of winning this “right war” in the American
struggle against terrorism. His March 2009
“AfPak” review clearly emphasized this
objective. Two years later, he is still seeking
a regional compact. But now, driven by the
conviction that American involvement cannot be open-ended, he is hoping to avoid getting Afghanistan wrong or, in other words,
to avert catastrophic disorder as U.S. military
forces begin to leave the country.
Although the regional approach has thus
survived as a permanent component of the
administration’s strategy, the political imperatives driving it have changed radically. This
raises a critical question: Can the regional
approach deliver cooperation now—when all
the neighboring states anticipate America’s
exit—if it could not produce genuine collaboration earlier—when America’s commitment seemed more enduring? Understanding
this issue is critical—before the administration embarks on more energetic diplomacy
intended to produce the regional settlement
that will avoid failure in Afghanistan.
Why Has a Regional
Solution Been So Elusive?
There is little doubt that meaningful regional
cooperation would enhance the prospects for
American success in Afghanistan. Regional
cooperation may even be imperative for an
effective transfer of security responsibilities
to Kabul. As the administration envisages it,
the war in Afghanistan will end not through
a military victory but only a political settlement, which would promise reduced violence in Afghanistan and thereby ease the
task facing Afghan forces slated to take progressively greater responsibility for ensuring
domestic order. The prospects for such an
agreement would depend on first achieving
reconciliation among the Afghans themselves—including the Taliban leadership
and its many confederates, the larger Pashtun population, other ethnic groups, and, of
course, the national government itself.
This process, though difficult, would be
eased considerably if Kabul’s neighbors were
to, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put
it, “respect Afghanistan’s sovereignty, which
means agreeing not to play out their rivalries within its borders, and to support reconciliation and efforts to ensure that al-Qaeda
and the syndicate of terrorism is denied safe
haven everywhere.” In support of this vision,
Clinton declared that the United States
would mount “a diplomatic surge to move
this conflict toward a political outcome that
shatters the alliance between the Taliban and
al-Qaeda, ends the insurgency, and helps to
produce not only a more stable Afghanistan
but a more stable region.”
Whatever the merits of this hope for
regional cooperation, they do not ensure
that it will eventually materialize—even if
the United States invests great diplomatic
capital as it is now preparing to do. To believe
otherwise is to fall victim to a voluntarist fallacy that presumes that successful collaboration will occur merely because there will be
joint benefits for all. The history of international politics regularly attests to the failures
of collective action, and if success in the
coming Afghan transition is premised on the
belief that Kabul’s neighbors will cooperate
now because of Washington’s effective diplomacy—when they have not for at least the last
decade—Washington’s hopes could be quickly
dashed.
The real reason the regional approach in
Afghanistan has failed is not because Kabul’s
neighbors are oblivious to the benefits of
cooperation or because Washington’s diplomacy has been inadequate. Rather, it has been
unsuccessful thus far mainly because the key
involved states—Afghanistan and Pakistan,
and also secondarily, India and Iran—have
sufficiently divergent aims to prevent any
effective collaboration. Therefore, for America
to engineer successful regionalism, it needs to
fundamentally transform either these states’
objectives or their dominant current strategies.
Achieving the former is likely to prove impossible, because their incompatible national aims
have been shaped by long, painful histories
that transcend America’s recent appearance
in the region. Achieving the latter may prove
more feasible because their present strategies
are arguably more susceptible to being shaped
by American actions. Paradoxically, however,
this susceptibility may hinge more on the
effectiveness of America’s military instruments
than on its diplomatic tools.
The Worm in the Apple
The regional conundrum in Afghanistan is
mainly rooted in the deeply troubled relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Ever since 1893, when the British Indian
Empire muscled the amir of Afghanistan into
Creating New Facts on the Ground
3
accepting the Durand Line—which split the
native Pashtun populations and absorbed
parts of Waziristan into the Raj—successive
regimes in Kabul have rejected what eventually became the inherited border between
Afghanistan and Pakistan. This dispute poisoned Afghanistan–Pakistan relations from
The regional conundrum in
Afghanistan is mainly rooted in the
deeply troubled relationship between
Afghanistan and Pakistan.
the very moment of the latter’s founding and
resulted in Afghanistan casting the only vote
opposing Pakistan’s admittance to the United
Nations. From 1947 to 1963 and then again
from 1973 to 1976, nationalist governments
in Kabul consistently challenged Pakistan over
the Durand Line through diplomatic pressure,
tribal incursions, and support for secessionist
movements—all premised on the hope that
the Pashtun discontent with Pakistan would
force the creation of a “Pashtunistan” that
would return naturally to its historical roots
within the Afghan nation.
Pakistan’s position, in these circumstances,
was not enviable: the prospect of conceding Afghan claims in its west when its own
demands over Jammu and Kashmir in its
east were rejected by India left the new state
with unsettled borders in both directions.
To Islamabad’s acute discomfiture, even the
Taliban—the most reliable proxies Pakistan has
ever had in Afghanistan—declined to disavow
Kabul’s historical rejection of the Durand Line
during their years in power. Until the last years
of the Taliban regime, therefore, the troubled
state of Afghan–Pakistani relations remained a
serious problem independent of India.
For most of the Cold War, AfghanIndian relations were proper but never particularly close. During the 1965 and 1971
4
CARNEGIE POLICY BRIEF
Indo-Pakistani conflicts, for example—and
contrary to the expectations of classical realpolitik—Afghanistan supported Pakistan as
a fellow Muslim nation both materially and
morally, despite their strong emotional differences over their common border. Only since
Pakistan attempted to physically dominate
Afghanistan—through its support for the
Taliban since the mid-1990s—have some
Afghans attempted to consummate a strategic partnership with India. This affiliation,
which initially materialized through India’s
Pakistan’s imperial adventure in Afghanistan
during the late 1990s was not precipitated
by any Indian penetration to its west.
support for the Northern Alliance during the
late 1990s, has now extended to sustaining
the Afghan government in Kabul. Although
in this respect India closely follows the international community, its contributions have
deeply unnerved the Pakistani military establishment headquartered in Rawalpindi.
These fears have given rise to the misleading claim that the regional discord surrounding Afghanistan centers on the long-standing
Indo-Pakistani rivalry. And this misconception has led to the quixotic recommendation
that the problems between New Delhi and
Islamabad—which are far more nettlesome
and tenacious—ought to first be resolved as
a means of combating the currently unhelpful Pakistani policies in Afghanistan. This recommendation is fallacious; Pakistan’s imperial adventure in Afghanistan during the late
1990s was not precipitated by any Indian
penetration to its west. Rather, the immediate
dangers posed by disorder along the Afghan
border, which if uncontrolled could arouse
the restive Pashtuns and over time resuscitate
the dangerous idea of “Pashtunistan,” motivated the Pakistani leadership to underwrite
the Taliban and support the military takeover
of Afghanistan. Fears about Indian subversion from Afghanistan appeared much later,
and, although this Pakistani charge has been
dismissed by New Delhi and remains uncorroborated by Washington, Rawalpindi’s obsession with defeating this perceived threat has
led it to tightly embrace the Taliban and their
confederates as a means of inflicting costs on
both Afghanistan and India.
Today, what Islamabad seeks more than
ever is peace along its western frontiers and
a nonthreatening regime in Kabul. These
entirely understandable aims can easily evoke
sympathy. The instruments that Islamabad
is using to pursue them, however, are deeply
problematic and lie at the root of the current
problems in Afghanistan. In its zeal to eradicate all threats from its west—which transcend
India because of Pakistan’s own problems with
Afghanistan—Islamabad has sought to exercise preponderant, if not overweening, influence over Kabul’s strategic direction. Whether
Pakistan ever enjoyed such control, even during the high tide of Taliban rule, is questionable, but this has not prevented Islamabad
from trying. This, at any rate, is the view of
most Afghans, who perceive Pakistan’s cultural condescension, its strident opposition to
the creation of a robust Afghan military, and
its continuing support of the Quetta Shura
(the Afghan Taliban leadership resident in
Pakistan) as means of shaping, if not dictating, Afghanistan’s national choices.
Even if the most extreme Afghan assessments of Pakistani intentions are disregarded, the fact remains that Pakistan has
stayed loyal to the Afghan Taliban and their
affiliates because they serve critical Pakistani
national interests. At the very least, these
insurgents provide Islamabad with influence
over Afghanistan’s domestic politics. If they
are integrated into the Afghan government
through a power-sharing arrangement in the
future—an ardent objective of Pakistan in
its vision of reconciliation—Pakistan could
influence Kabul’s decisions in regard to both
Islamabad and New Delhi. Pakistan’s continued protection of the Taliban thus can potentially yield great benefits if its favored transition scenario materializes.
However, even if a disorderly transition—
marked by civil strife amid the continuing
exit of coalition forces—were to emerge, the
Taliban could still prove to be just as important. At the very least, they could function as
instruments for controlling the southern and
eastern Afghan provinces adjacent to Pakistan.
Although this domination would not provide
any immediate satisfaction on contentious
issues like the Durand Line—and could actually result in the de facto unification of a large,
radicalized Pashtun belt that extends deep into
Pakistan—Rawalpindi believes that this is an
acceptable risk compared with the alternative
of sacrificing the Taliban without securing any
political gains vis-à-vis Kabul, New Delhi, and
Washington.
On all these matters, it is the Pakistani military leaders in Rawalpindi—not the civilian
government officials in Islamabad—who call
the shots. Consequently, regardless of which
scenario unfolds, the military has good reason
to hold on to the Taliban, protect their leadership, and aid their operations. Despite the
pressures emanating from Washington and
Kabul, Rawalpindi’s paranoia about “encirclement” ensures that it will not surrender its
Taliban proxies without getting something
substantial in return. Unfortunately for the
international community, however, the compensations that Pakistan seeks are exactly those
that Afghanistan would find most difficult.
No government in Kabul today can concede the legitimacy of the Durand Line—
and thereby accept Pakistan’s inherited territorial claims—without a wider and more
permanent normalization of bilateral ties
Creating New Facts on the Ground
5
with Pakistan. For a weaker state with little
else to bargain with, Kabul can acquiesce to
Islamabad’s demands for a stable frontier
only after Islamabad demonstrates its friendly
intentions, not before, and certainly not in
exchange for mere promises of noninterference. The longer Pakistani support for the
Rawalpindi’s paranoia about
“encirclement” ensures that it
will not surrender its Taliban
proxies without getting something
substantial in return.
Taliban continues, the deeper will be the suspicions among Afghan elites (both Pashtun
and non-Pashtun) about Islamabad’s enduring
interest in limiting Kabul’s autonomy—and
the greater will be the resistance to accommodating Pakistan.
Similarly, no government in Kabul today—
not even a purely Pashtun regime that might be
imagined as dominant in the future—would
accept Pakistan’s demand that India’s influence in Afghanistan be eradicated as the price
of Afghan–Pakistani rapprochement. Neither
the ethnic “minorities,” who spearheaded the
rollback of Taliban rule and who constitute
58 percent of Afghanistan’s population, nor
the Pashtuns, who have enjoyed long historical links with India, would readily concede to
such a demand. Of all the neighboring states
currently involved in Afghanistan, India consistently enjoys the highest approval ratings
because of both its reconstruction assistance
and its good relations with all Afghan ethnicities. Furthermore, most Afghans seek to maintain robust relations with India as a hedge
against the threats posed by Pakistan, which
is seen as the greater danger to Afghanistan’s
national interests. India, for its part, has
two goals in Afghanistan: ensuring that the
6
CARNEGIE POLICY BRIEF
country never again becomes a safe haven for
terrorists, and maintaining Afghanistan’s strategic autonomy and political independence.
Because these goals are exactly those that most
Afghans seek as well, Kabul—unless ruled by
direct Pakistani proxies—can never accede to
the Pakistani military’s demands.
Even President Hamid Karzai, who has
mulled the idea of making a deal with Pakistan
Most Afghans seek to maintain robust
relations with India as a hedge against
the threats posed by Pakistan, which
is seen as the greater danger to
Afghanistan’s national interests.
that induces Islamabad to press the Taliban
into reconciliation with Kabul (and toward
that end, has formally accepted Islamabad
as a partner in a joint reconciliation commission), has been unable to find the magic
formula that would achieve this aim without
either dangerously exposing Afghanistan to
Pakistan’s future machinations or increasing
his own personal vulnerability to its extremist
proxies. His problems here have been multiplied by Iran’s recent decisions to support the
Taliban—mainly out of spite for the United
States—but, thankfully, these actions are not
yet militarily significant.
Although the poisoned relations between
Kabul and Islamabad thus remain a critical
impediment to the regional solution that the
U.S. administration seeks, they only mirror
the problems facing “reconciliation”—another
Obama priority—as a device for ending the
war. Reuniting the Quetta Shura with the
Afghan government has thus far proven impossible simply because the contest between them
is as much a struggle over who rules in Kabul as
what kind of regime prevails in Afghanistan—
in other words, it is as much a competition
over power as a dispute over alternative visions
of political order. The Taliban insurgents who
were defeated by the United States and its
allies in 2001 and 2002, are, to put it plainly,
trying to make a comeback. They are seeking
to restore the rule they enjoyed in Afghanistan
from 1996 to 2001, when they imposed order
through force legitimated by a harsh conservatism that recognized neither universal rights
nor equality of treatment.
This political system is rejected by most
Afghans today and, though there is wide support for ending the war through a negotiated
settlement if possible, neither the Pashtuns
nor those minorities who support the Afghan
government would countenance any accord
that would give the insurgents direct access
to power unless they first renounced violence,
were willing to be tested by an electoral process, and demonstrated some commitment to
the Constitution. Because the Taliban have
neither any use for such niceties nor a burning
desire to integrate with the regime on the latter’s terms, a compromise has proven beyond
reach. Furthermore, as long as the Quetta
Shura remains convinced that the international coalition is headed for an irrevocable
exit, the necessity for compromise becomes less
urgent because total victory seems inevitable
once the “puppet” regime in Kabul is deprived
of its foreign protectors. Finally, the sanctuaries offered by Pakistan to the Taliban—where
their key cadres can hide, plan, organize, and
refit—provide lucrative disincentives to compromise. And as long as Rawalpindi protects
the key Taliban leaders from allied military
forces, there is no reason why they should be
interested in any conciliation when, by any
objective assessment, they have been seriously
damaged but not yet conclusively defeated
(see table 1).
This last component brings the regional
approach and reconciliation—the twin pillars of the Obama administration’s transition
Creating New Facts on the Ground
7
Table 1
When Would the Taliban Consider Reconciliation?
The Quetta Shura is likely to consider reconciling with the Afghan government when the
following nine variables in their totality alter sufficiently to its disadvantage. Although the
coalition has disrupted the insurgency considerably—as the analysis here suggests—the Taliban
are not yet sufficiently failing to make reconciliation a particularly attractive exit strategy.
1. The declining effectiveness of population intimidation
The greatest gains in reducing Taliban intimidation have been witnessed in Kandahar; until these
extend more broadly to the 80 “key terrain districts” in Afghanistan, the Shura will resist the conclusion that its
military campaign is failing.
Assessment:
2. Deteriorating organizational cohesion
There is evidence that coalition military operations in 2010 have created fear, dismay, and vacillation
among Taliban foot soldiers and commanders in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. A much sharper acceleration of
this trend will be essential before the Shura concludes that continuing resistance is unsustainable.
Assessment:
3. Diminishing war-fighting stockpiles
Although coalition military operations have interdicted substantial war-fighting materials in 2010, the
primary combat materials—small arms, ammunition, and explosives—are still freely available inside Afghanistan
or in Pakistan.
Assessment:
4. Depleting access to financial resources
The primary sources of Taliban finance remain foreign contributions, narcotics, and local “taxes”; none
of these sources has yet been substantially undermined by coalition operations.
Assessment:
5. Losing territorial control in the Pashtun areas
Although the Taliban control less than a quarter of Afghanistan’s districts (and an even smaller fraction
of its population), the Taliban presence in the Pashtun heartland has been significant. Recent coalition operations
have slowly begun reversing Taliban control, but the still-limited number of troops available implies that a sharp—
sustained—reversal is still far away.
Assessment:
6. Plummeting operational effectiveness
Assessment: While the Taliban’s operational effectiveness has dramatically decreased in some parts of Afghanistan—
in Kabul and its environs, for example—its ability to conduct assassinations, improvised explosive device attacks,
and suicide bombings has not decreased—and will increasingly become a substitute for territorial control.
7. Increasing personal dangers to Shura leaders
Key leaders of the Taliban Rahbari Shura (leadership council) who control the functional committees or
the regional Shura operations rarely travel to or inside Afghanistan; as long as they remain safe under protection
by Inter-Services Intelligence inside Pakistan, they face few personal dangers that would motivate exploring
reconciliation.
Assessment:
8. Losing political relevance both inside and outside Afghanistan
The prospective loss of political salience would be the strongest possible motivation for Taliban
reconciliation. Although weakened by coalition military operations, the absence of an alternative Pashtun
leadership to the Taliban and the increasing importance accorded to the Taliban by discussions about
reconciliation have bequeathed it with continuing relevance, despite the Taliban being the most important cause
of Pashtun casualties today.
Assessment:
9. Growing expectations of a coalition exit from Afghanistan
The stronger the Taliban belief that the coalition will depart Afghanistan, the stronger its disincentives
to considering reconciliation; although the presence of foreign troops does motivate resistance in some districts,
the perception that the coalition will “exit” Afghanistan in 2014 creates great incentives to eschew reconciliation
and outlast International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in the quest to recover control in Kabul.
Assessment:
8
CARNEGIE POLICY BRIEF
strategy—into vicious collision. Pakistan’s reasons for protecting the Taliban may be rational in terms of its own self-interest, but the
net effect is to strengthen Kabul’s conviction
that Rawalpindi only seeks to further weaken
the Afghans and secure their subordination
by dividing them. Most Afghan elites believe
that if the insurgency were to be deprived of
its Pakistani sanctuary, it would either rapidly
dissipate or end in a negotiated settlement on
American forces have inflicted pain at levels
that the Quetta Shura and its Pakistani
protectors do not yet fully comprehend.
the regime’s terms; that it has not thus far done
so, despite the coalition’s superior resources,
only suggests to them the depths to which
Pakistan will go to obstruct Afghan unity and
leave Kabul prostrate. In such circumstances,
Afghan leaders have even weaker impetus to
placate Islamabad and stronger reasons to rely
on others, such as New Delhi and Washington,
to neutralize what are seen as Pakistan’s mala
fide intentions toward their country.
The Only—Hard—Way Out:
Give war a chance
Cutting through the Gordian knot intertwining reconciliation and the regional solution
has thus far proved beyond the capability
of American diplomacy—for good reason.
Whether through persuasion or even generous inducements, Washington simply cannot ensure either an Afghan accommodation
to Pakistani interests (namely, accepting the
Durand Line and ejecting India from Afghanistan) or a Pakistani renunciation of its most
effective bargaining chip (the Taliban insurgents)—because each solution undermines
either Kabul’s or Rawalpindi’s core interests.
More dialogues, international conferences,
and mediation efforts—even a diplomatic
surge—will not bridge this divide, because
leaning on Afghanistan to accept subordination vis-à-vis Pakistan is untenable, while the
Pakistani military cannot be persuaded to sacrifice the Taliban as long as its paranoia forces
it to hold fast to that option.
In principle, however, there is a way out: U.S.
military operations in Afghanistan. General
David Petraeus’ current campaign offers the
opportunity to neutralize the most destabilizing elements of Pakistan’s current strategy and,
by extension, to aid the process of internal reconciliation—which, if successful, could create
the preconditions for a future Afghan–Pakistan
rapprochement and greater regional stability.
For this prospect to have any chance of success,
however, the International Security Assistance
Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan must be able to
complete what it has impressively begun: decimating the Taliban and their operational capability inside Afghanistan.
Although Petraeus has wisely declined to succumb to the temptations of triumphalism—he
has stated, for example, that “the momentum
achieved by the Taliban in Afghanistan since
2005 has been arrested in much of the country
and reversed in a number of important areas,”
but “while the security progress achieved over
the past year is significant, it is also fragile and
reversible”—the truth of the matter is that his
forces, in the words of Frederick Kagan and
Kimberly Kagan, did “unprecedented damage to the insurgency within Afghanistan in
2010.” Thus American forces have inflicted
pain at levels that the Quetta Shura and its
Pakistani protectors do not yet fully comprehend—ranging from clearing territories
physically controlled by the Taliban, to erasing internal safe havens and support zones, to
destroying enormous arms caches and factories
manufacturing improvised explosive devices,
to decimating the insurgency’s midlevel command element (which functions as the lynchpin between the Taliban’s “shadow governors”
and the fighting rank and file). The leadership
in Quetta has responded to these losses by
pressing its fighters to return to Afghanistan
earlier in the year than usual and by demanding more suicide bombings, targeted assassinations, and efforts to intimidate the population, collaborators, and government officials.
And the Pakistani military has reacted to ISAF
successes by admonishing the government of
Afghanistan to contemplate reconciliation on
its terms because of the certainty of eventual
American failure.
Despite these understandable reactions,
the best measure of ISAF’s success remains
neither the gains made by the U.S. military
through its unilateral operations—however
impressive—nor the disarray and rebelliousness now visible inside Taliban ranks but
rather the numerous leads being provided
by ordinary Afghans to the security forces,
which in every case have resulted in successfully targeting insurgent commanders, their
accomplices, and their war matériel. If turning
the tide in an insurgency is best presaged by
the local population’s changing loyalties, then
ISAF’s 2010 operations in Kandahar and its
environs provide the best hope. This is just as
well, because if Petraeus fails in Afghanistan,
a reconciliation will indeed end the conflict,
but it will be the coalition that reconciles with
the Taliban rather than the other way around.
A military stalemate will only be marginally
better, because although it may compel negotiations to begin, these parleys are unlikely to
end successfully—the usual outcome in most
internal wars—given the persistent fear on
both sides about how any agreed-on settlement would be enforced when neither one
enjoys a monopoly of force.
The successful extension of ISAF operations to Loya Paktia—planned for later in
2011 or 2012—would, in contrast, provide
further reason for Pakistan to review the wisdom of persisting with its current gambit of
Creating New Facts on the Ground
9
supporting the Taliban confederacy against the
Afghan state. This strategy remains sensible
only as long as it is successful. But if ISAF is
able to undermine it not by overtly attacking the sanctuaries in Pakistan but rather by
Rawalpindi could be forced to reassess
the worth of holding on to what is not
only a wasting asset but also one that
ends up strengthening the Afghan–Indian
association while fraying Pakistan’s own
ties with the United States.
eliminating the midlevel commanders and
their acolytes who fight within walking distance of their homes—while the government
of Afghanistan weans the lumpen “rent-aTaliban” off the battlefield through a vigorous reintegration program, reaches out to
as many senior and regional elements of the
Quetta Shura as it can either independently or
through the good offices of other states (thus
sowing discord in Taliban ranks while increasing the dissonance between the Taliban and
Pakistan), and congeals the emerging split
between the Hezb-i-Islami (Gulbuddin) and
the Taliban—Rawalpindi could be forced to
reassess the worth of holding on to what is
not only a wasting asset but also one that ends
up strengthening the Afghan–Indian association while fraying Pakistan’s own ties with the
United States.
Right now, Washington is admittedly
far from this happy juncture. But successful
ISAF military operations—not diplomacy—
still hold the best promise of success for both
the reconciliation and the regional solution
for which the Obama administration yearns.
Only effective military action can create new
facts on the ground. And reconciliation and
regional cooperation will only be possible
10
CARNEGIE POLICY BRIEF
when the opposition’s strategies change in
response to these facts. This proposition would
not be true if the Taliban leadership were to
suddenly and unilaterally cease its insurgency,
if the Afghan government were to unexpectedly acquiesce to Pakistani interests, or if the
Pakistani military were to abruptly relinquish
its desire to control Kabul’s choices. However,
these outcomes are all implausible and incapa-
Successful ISAF military operations—not
diplomacy—still hold the best promise
of success for both the reconciliation
and the regional solution for which the
Obama administration yearns.
ble of being engendered through diplomacy.
American diplomats must therefore be
patient. They must persist but be content
with small gains in the interim, while preparing for the moment when reconciliation
and a regional solution might become truly
viable. (Figure 1 lays out a notional road map
illustrating this process.) Toward this end,
Washington’s policymakers should first focus
on repairing their relationship with President
Karzai and on negotiating a meaningful strategic partnership agreement with Kabul. The
former will be essential for the success of all
coalition endeavors in Afghanistan during the
next few years. And the latter is necessary both
to neutralize Taliban and Pakistani expectations of U.S. abandonment, which justify
their continuing efforts to control Kabul, and
to reassure Karzai of continued U.S. support,
which would empower him to invest in good
governance throughout Afghanistan rather
than concentrating merely on surviving.
Beyond these immediate, critical goals,
however, U.S. diplomacy should concentrate on understanding what the Afghans
truly want. And this means expanding the
conversation—talking, not negotiating—
beyond the government in Kabul to include
the Pashtuns at large, as well as minorities and
civil society groups. Once a potential consensus is discerned—assuming there is one—
American diplomats ought to help the government to reform the current Afghan political
system and to craft policies that can support
reconciliation, even as they engage the region’s
states to support these Afghan goals. But what
the U.S. administration should not be doing
now is making independent overtures to the
Taliban, which would not only be rebuffed
by the Quetta Shura’s senior members but
also, more dangerously, deepen the split with
President Karzai; demoralize the Afghan state
just when counterinsurgency successes are
becoming visible; reinforce Pakistan’s impetus to hold on even more tightly to its proxies; and rattle other regional actors, like India,
whose cooperation is necessary for final success—all while making the United States look
more desperately frantic than is warranted.
Because attempts to force either reconciliation
or a regional solution through diplomacy are
now likely to fail, they could make achieving
these outcomes even harder later on.
Despite the Obama administration’s current inclinations, the diplomatic surge therefore should still take second place to the military effort—at least for a while longer. Because
the painful road to reconciliation can be
found only through successful military action,
the administration’s main task ought to be
resolutely supporting Petraeus and his fighting
cohort so that they can sufficiently alter the
realities on the ground in Afghanistan to make
a negotiated peace possible. This means that
Obama should forgo the politically calculated
drawdown of combat troops this summer and
instead accept the advice of his field commanders to maintain the largest possible contingent necessary for the coming campaign in
eastern Afghanistan. Hard and unpalatable as
Creating New Facts on the Ground
this course might be for the president, it alone
offers a solution that protects the recent gains
in Afghanistan and advances American interests over the long term. n
11
The Carnegie Endowment does not take
institutional positions on public policy issues;
the views represented here are the author’s own
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
Endowment, its staff, or its trustees.
Figure 1
A notional road map for reconciliation
and regional engagement
Aggressive ISAF Military Operations Continue
U.S. Leads Regional Discussions
Phase
I
Afghanistan
Pakistan
India
Repair U.S.-Karzai
relationship and negotiate
U.S.-AF Strategic
Framework Agreement
U.S.-PK
engagement
intended to shape
PK‘s goals and
strategy in AF
U.S.-IN-GIROA
engagement
Develop internal consensus
on reconciliation (goals)
· Intra-Pashtun, minorities,
and civil society discussion
Iran
Others
U.S.-AF Contact
Group
engagement
Accelerate reintegration
Aid splits among Taliban
confederates
II
Implement internal
consensus on reconciliation
(means)
· Political Reform, Amnesty,
DDR
· Reform AF Assistance
· Develop AF Econ Strategy
Initiate key discussions
· GIROA-Taliban
· GIROA-PK
Independent
GIROA-IN
discussions
U.S.-IN discussion
U.S.-PK-GIROA
discussion
U.S.-IN-GIROA
discussion
Independent
GIROA-IR
discussions
U.S.-IN discussion
through AF
Contact Group
Independent
GIROA-KSA
discussions
U.S. consultation
with CARs,
Russia, KSA
Possible ISAF Ceasefire
UN Oversees Regional Discussions
ISAF Military Operations Yield Sufficient Operational Success in Afghanistan
III
Reconciliation between
GIROA-Taliban
Outlined
Implementation of
Amnesty & DDR begins
U.S.-PK discussion
to support
GIROA-Taliban
agreement
U.S.-IN discussion
to support
GIROA-Taliban
agreement
UN-IN discussion
UN-IR discussions
UN-Regional
discussions
U.S.-GIROA-PK-IN-IR-CARs Guarantee Reconciliation Agreement between GIROA and Taliban under UN Auspices/Conference
Key:
AF, Afghanistan; CARs, Central Asian Republics; DDR, disarmament, demobilization,
and reintegration; GIROA, government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan; IN, India;
IR, Iran; ISAF, International Security Assistance Force; KSA, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; PK,
Pakistan; UN, United Nations; U.S., United States.
© 2011 Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace. All rights
reserved.
carnegieendowment.org
www.CarnegieEndowment.org
www.Carnegieendowment.org
www.Carnegieendowment.org
The Carnegie
Carnegie Endowment
for
The
Endowment
The
Carnegie
Endowment
The
Carnegie
Endowment
forfor
International
PeacePeace
is a private,
for
International
is a
International
Peace
a private,
International
Peace
is aisprivate,
private,
organizanonprofitnonprofit
organization
dedicated
nonprofit
organization
dedicated
nonprofit
organization
dedicated
tion
dedicated
to advancing
to advancing
cooperation
between
to
advancing
cooperation
tocooperation
advancing
cooperation
between
nations and promoting active
between
nations
and
promoting
between
nations
and
promoting
nations
and
promoting
active
international engagement by the
international
engagement
by
active
international
engagement
active
international
engagement
United
States.
Founded
in 1910, its
the
United
States.
Founded
by
the
United
States.
Founded
by the United States. Founded in in
work
is nonpartisan
dedicated
in
1910,
Carnegie
isand
nonparti1910,
work
is nonpartisan
and
1910,
its its
work
is nonpartisan
and
san
and dedicated
achievto achieving
practicaltoresults.
dedicated
to
achieving
practical
dedicated to achieving practical
ing practical results. Building
results.
The
Endowment—
As
it celebrates
its establishCentennial,
results.
The
Endowment—
on
the
successful
currently
pioneering
first
the Carnegie
Endowment
is
currently
thethe
first
ment
ofpioneering
the Carnegie
Moscow
Center,
the
Endowglobal
think
tank—has
operations
pioneering
the
first
global
think
global
think
tank—has
operations
ment
has
added
operations
in
China,
the
Middle
East,
Russia,
offices
now
in tank,
China,with
the flourishing
Middle East,
in
Beijing,
Beirut,
and
BrusEurope,
and the
United
States.
in
Washington,
Moscow,
Beijing,
Russia,
Europe,
and
the United
sels to its existing offices in
TheseThese
five
include
the
Beirut,
andlocations
Brussels.
These five
States.
five
locations
Washington and Moscow.
centers
world
governance
locations
include
the centers
include
theoftwo
centers
of
The
Carnegie
Endowment
and
the
places
whose
political
of world
governance
and
the
world
governance
andPolicy,
the
three
publishes
Foreign
one
of
theand
world’s
leading
evolution
international
places
whose
political
evolution
places
whose
political
evolution
magazines
international
policies
will of
most
determine
and
international
policies
and
international
policies
willwill
politics
and
economics,
which
thedetermine
near-term
possibilities
for
most
determine
the
near-term
most
the
near-term
reaches readers in more than
international
peace
and
economic
possibilities
international
possibilities
forfor
international
120
countries
and
several
advance.
peace
and
economic
advance.
peace
and
economic
advance.
languages.
Brazil
and Turkey
have seen
Further
Reading
Further
reAdiNG
reSOUrCeS
large, real necessary domestic reforms and the global
exchange-rate appreciation relative to their economic situation worsens. Countries that
Visit
www.CarnegieEndowment.org/pubs
these
and
other
publications.
Visit
www.Carnegieendowment.org/pubs
forfor
these
and
other
publications.
Visit
www.Carnegieendowment.org/pubs
for these
and
other
publications.
ten-year
pre-crisis averages, while current
are
unable
to stem
the revaluation of their
account energy
deficits efficiency
in other in
economies,
such Chandler
as currencies
or Gwin
that (Carnegie
see current
account for
defiFinancing
William
and
Holly
Reconciling
With the
TalibanChina,
, Ashley
J. Tellis,
Carnegie
Endowment
for International
issues
in pakistan’s
economy,
S. Akbar
Zaidi (Karachi:
Oxford
University
Press, Endowment
2005).
India,
have
already
deteriorated
significantly
cits
surge
again
could
easily
resort
to
trade
International
Peace, AprilPeace,
2009.2007) www.carnegieendowment.org/files/chandler_clean_energy_final.pdf.
from pre-crisis averages. Even with currencies restrictions. Thus, today’s open disputes over
the political economy of military rule in pakistan: the musharraf years, S. Akbar
World
energy in
Outlook
2007:
China and
india insights,
International
Energy
Agency
appreciating
emerging
markets,
theNational
increase
current
account
targets
and
veiled
threats of
Defining
Success
in Afghanistan
, Frederick
W.University
Kagan
and
Kagan,
American
Zaidi,
Institute
of South
Asian Studies,
of Kimberly
Singapore,
Working
Paper no.
(Paris,
OECD/IEA,
2007).
their domestic
demand
caused
byStudy
large of War,
increased
currency
Enterprise
Institute and
Institute
for the
January
2011. intervention could evolve
31,in
January
2008.
inflows
of
capital
(implied
by
further
quaninto
tomorrow’s
trade restrictions. Such an
Climate Change Mitigation in developing Countries: Brazil, China, india, Mexico, South Africa,
titative
easing
advanced
countries)
would
outcome
not
only threaten
the
global
Remarks
atWilliam
thein
Launch
of the
Asia Society’s
of and
Richard
C. Holbrooke
Memorial
pakistan’s
economy
at the
Crossroads:
pastSeries
policies
present
imperatives,
Parvez
Chandler,
Roberto
Schaeffer,
Zhou
Dadi,
P.would
R. Shukla,
Fernando
Tudela,
Ogunlade
and
Turkey,
inevitably
over
into their
non-tradable
recovery
but would
,spill
Hillary
Rodham
Clinton,
February
2011.
Addresses
Hasan
(Karachi:
Oxford
University
1998).
Davidson,
Sema
Alpan-Atamer
(PewPress,
Center
on Global
Climate Change,
2002). also undermine the
goods and services, stoking inflation, real wage foundations of postwar global prosperity.
The
role
ofand
CO
embodiment
inAfghanistan
U.S.-China
Trade,
Shui
Bin G20—beginning
and
Robert and
Harris
(Energy
Vol.
Testimony
on
the
Situation
in
, General
David
Petraeus
Michèle
Final
report
of2housing
the
panel
economists,
medium-term
development
imperatives
increases,
andofasset
price bubbles.
The
with Policy,
the United
34,
Issue
18,
2006).
Flournoy,
Testimony
before
the Senate
and the
HouseStates,
Armedthe
Services
Committees,
and
strategy
for
pakistan,
Planning
Commission,
Government
of Pakistan,
Apriland
2010.
This
is a sure
recipe
for instability
down
largest
economy
owner of
March
2011.
road, and could pave the way for the next the global reserve currency—would be well
Achieving China’s Target for energy intensity reduction in 2010, An exploration of recent
military,
Civil society
and time
democratization
pakistan,
Akbar
(Lahore:obsession
Vanbig financial
crisis,Future
this
originating
ininZhou
advised
toS.drop
itsZaidi
dangerous
with
Lin Jiang,
Nan, Mark
D. Levine,
and David
Fridley (LawTrends
and Possible
Scenarios,
Is a Regional
Strategy Viable in Afghanistan? Ashley J. Tellis and Aroop Mukharji, eds.,
guard
Press,
2010).
emerging
markets.
rebalancing.
Instead,
countries
should
conrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2006) http://china.lbl.gov/publications/lbnl-61800.pdf.
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, May 2010.
As dangerous as large domestic and cross- centrate on fixing their domestic problems
realizing
the Potential
of energy
efficiency
(Unitedand
Nations
Foundation,
2007). demand at the
border flows
of hot money
are, an
even greater
expanding
domestic
threat looms. A resurgence of protectionism maximum sustainable rate. n
energy efficiency Policy and CO2 in China’s industry: Tapping the Potential, Wang Yanjia, Tsinghua
may be in the offing if countries fail to enact
University, Presented at the OECD Global Forum on Sustainable Development, Paris, IEA, March 20, 2006.
1779 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington,
DC 20036 Avenue, NW
1779
Massachusetts
1779
Massachusetts
Avenue,
1779
Massachusetts
Avenue,
NWNW
Washington,
DC 20036
Washington,
20036
Washington,
DCDC
20036
The Carnegie Endowment does not take institutional positions on public
policy issues; the views represented here are the author’s own and do not
Cert no. SGS-COC-003732
necessarily reflect the views of the Endowment, its staff, or its trustees.
GLOBaL
Creating ROLLERNew
PakIstan’s
FOREIGN
REBaLanCInG:
Facts onECOnOmY:
the
COastER
POLICY
ThE
DanGEROus
Ground
tax
EvasIOn
for
the Next
President
OBsEssIOn
stIFLEs
GROwth
© 2011 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.